Is it a Right to have be able to have children

By having sperm donation, egg donation and surrogacy available to those who can afford the services there is an argument forming by the Donor Conception industry that yes, it is a person's right to have children. When that view is taken the child's wants and needs are automatically placed as secondary to those of the parents.
Recently as I've been voicing my opinion about Donor Conception I've been getting asked well what do you think about adoption, it's another scenario where there are large sums of money being exchanged for a family to acquire a child. To me there is a HUGE difference between the two. That lays with the intention. When it comes to adoption there is a NEED for the child who is already in the world to be in a home. Whereas when utilizing donor conception technologies we are meeting the perspective parents WANT. In both cases the child will be split up from the biological family, but in the world of donor conception the split from the entire biological family is INTENTIONAL.
It should be a right to know  where we come from and who our biological parents are. I more especially believe this when it comes to the donor conception world due to the fact that every adult involved is a willing participant. When you look at the states that do have any legislation towards surrogacy, no state has given the product being the created the right to know their origin. I believe that the intended parents a lot of time have fear that by allowing their child to have a relationship with a surrogate in particular what if the surrogate feels that the child is theirs and sues back for custody. (I do personally know of instances where women I know who have done traditionally surrogacies have regretted their decision and sued back for joint custody of their child.) Again to protect the intended parents I believe that's why there is nothing out their legislatively to abolish the anonymity of the donor conception.
I recently read on a surrogacy board, a surrogate said that she at times wondered how her surrogate child would feel about the financial transaction, but then she stops herself by acknowledging that the child wouldn't be here without the financial transaction that took place. To me that proves the point the the child conceived through donor conception is a commodity up for sale. How do we as a society determine at what point it is wrong for money to exchange hands for a child? If a surrogacy arrangement is made during the gestation of the child and papers are signed then it is considered human trafficking (at least by California's laws). However, if those same papers in California are signed before the sperm and egg meet then it's ok. As a product of donor conception to me it's irrelevant as to when the paperwork got signed, that part of the process no effect on me compared to other aspects of how the surrogacy arrangement was handled. If a child is already in this world and a parent doesn't want them it's illegal for them to sell their child but I'm sure that someone who wants a child would be willing to pay. I believe that it is still selling a human being as a product when there is money that exchanges hands. In Canada they have abolished all forms of payment when it comes to sperm and egg donation, and only allow altruistic donations.  By answering yes, that it should be a right for anyone to be a parent, we further turn the child into a commodity.